Journal of Business and Educational Leadership

Volume 8, No. 1; Fall 2018

LEADERSHIP IS MORE THAN RANK

C. Kenneth Meyer
Lance J. Noe
Jeffrey A. Geerts
Drake University
Heather Booth
University of Oklahoma

ABSTRACT

RHIP—“Rank Has Its Privileges,” is secondary to the substance of this case

study—“Leadership is more than rank!” Cheryl Landry, experienced in public
management, faced new challenges in the military. Conversant with sundry
leadership theories, she now was convinced more than ever in value of experiential
knowledge. She reflected on the suggestions she often heard from superiors that
they had learned through the College of Hard Knocks. Still, she wondered what
attributes are truly associated with successful leadership principles and effective
managerial style. The case showcases the different styles and dynamics of
leadership associated with two different positions of leadership in the Central Fire
Department at her airbase, and their accompanying personalities—the assistant
chief of operation and the station captain. She observed that they focused on quite
different attributes that they thought were embedded in their job descriptions and
associated responsibilities—one with a “hands-on” and the other with a “hands-
off” policy. She analyzed the two different styles of leadership and attempted to
reconcile their behavior and orientation to various mainstream leadership theories
she understood. In the final analysis, she conducted a “psychological autopsy” and
her assessment left her with more questions to ask than she had durable answers.
The case ends with a set of thought provoking Questions and Instructions which
are carefully crafted and encourage group dialogue and self-reflection.

Keywords: Leadership, Organizational Behavior; Discipline, Case Study Analysis,

Managerial Effectiveness, Group dialogue

Recommended Courses: Military Science; Military Leadership; Cases in

Management; Leadership; Public Administration; Business Management; Public
Personnel Administration; and Human Resource Management

Introduction

Cheryl Landry returned to her barracks in a state of bewilderment and anxiety. She
thought she understood what made organizations “tick,” but somehow her
29
Meyer, Noe, Geerts and Booth

experience during the week stood out in stark contrast to what she had experienced
at work in the Central Fire Department. As she fixed a “smoothie” at her kitchen
counter and added the powdered “Muscle Force” additive to the frozen blueberries,
banana, and skimmed milk which she had placed in the freezer overnight, she
muttered to herself in wonderment about how leadership is best learned and then
practiced. She stated in slightly audible tones that “…reading textbooks might be
a great way to learn about leadership, but it certainly does not compare to studying
leadership by “total immersion” in real life organization.”

As she sipped the “diet cocktail” she had mixed, she reflected on how she had
learned about the many theories of leadership, such as Blake and Mouton’s
Managerial Grid, Rensis Likert’s System 1-to-System 4, and Leonard Fielder’s
Contingency Theory—to mention just a few theories and how they vary in their
relevancy to the real world and their explanatory power. She wondered how an
array of divergent personalities can best be factored into a workable theory of
leadership and although textbook learning provides a foundation of knowledge, it
was her experience that this kind of formal learning was less meaningful than that
which she acquired by working in an organization and observing what transpired
between the different “players” and vicariously trying on in her mind the various
things she had learned from her lengthy work experience. Indeed, while taking
management courses in college, she concluded that the intricacies of human action
and inaction and the complex interaction of different persons, departments and
agencies were best understood through case study analysis.

A Casual Analysis of the Fire Department

In a careful and thoughtful manner, she sketched out on lined white paper the
organizational ingredients that comprised the Central Fire Department at the Air
Base. In her attempt to understand the organizational dynamics of the department,
she noted that the fire department was made up of a highly structured hierarchy.
Within the organization, she noted, there were two teams that work alternating
twenty-four hour shifts, known as the A shift and the B shift. Each shift was
managed by the “AC,” or Assistant Chief of Operations and the Station Captain.
Below them were sundry Non-commissioned Officers, or NCO’s, and Airmen. In
support of the two shifts were the military personnel that worked regular eight-
hour shifts and assigned to work in areas such as fire prevention and suppression
training, health, safety and ergonomics, and they were not involved in responding
to emergency calls. At the apex or top of the chain of command was the Chief of
the department. Her interactions and experience largely dealt with the top
leadership of the B shift.

MSgt Matthew Hansen, assistant chief for the B shift, was in charge of the shift as
a whole and, in her opinion, focused on conducting exercises, establishing award
packages for members of the shift, and assessing emergency shift performance.
The AC, she understood, was to have a “hands-off” policy as it pertained to the
30
Journal of Business and Educational Leadership

“…day-to-day operations and the actual running of the shift.” Additionally, the AC
served in a liaison position between upper management and the shift.

MSgt Chris Lanier, the Station Captain for the B shift, unlike the AC was
instrumentally involved in the day-to-day operational affairs. In this capacity, the
station captain made truck “manning” assignments, and many other duties, and
determined when the shift is “down”—when firefighting personnel are allowed to
stop working for the day. Hansen and Lanier also supervised the eight or more
Airmen and the five or so NCO’s, although Lanier was subordinate to Hansen.

As Cheryl continued to develop the structure and style of the fire department, she
had in her mind that both Hansen and Lanier were leaders only in terms of the
positions and rank that they held. She chuckled to herself, saying “…if this pair
were placed in a professional civilian setting, they would have been ousted a long
time ago.” In short, the airmen and women followed their orders, for not to do so
would have constituted insubordination; the followers respected the rank worn by
their “leaders,” but they had little more than contempt for the persons themselves.
She further mused, “Is there something inherently wrong when leadership status is
assigned on the basis of rank?” And, she understood full well that rank in the
military is partially a function of time in service—not principally based on
demonstrated leadership and management skills.

An Assessment of Leadership Styles

As Cheryl, went to the second page of her lined tablet, she placed in bold capital
letters the following heading: LEADERSHIP STYLE. As she flushed out their
styles, she penned the following—although now, more than ever, she realized that
she lacked the formal labels and theories that would aid in her analysis: MSgt
Hansen does not treat his team members professionally, and rather than earning
respect, he simply demands it. On the other hand, MSgt Lanier is seen as a
“passive” doormat, and lacks the necessary skills to be an effective leader. As she
engaged in performing a mental autopsy on Hansen and Lanier she itemized the
following traits for Hansen:

1. He knows that he is in charge because he has the most stripes on his sleeve
and therefore, commands with authority.
2. He does not consider the thoughts or opinions of others and feels that to
do so would diminish his own position.
3. He combines an authoritative style with a strong task and results
orientation, seeing the other members of B shift as a means to an end;
personnel are simply there to get the job done and done according to his
strident dictates and without his caring concern.
4. He sees things the same way as the upper management which, in turn, is
pleased that tasks are done correctly the first time around and do not have

31
Meyer, Noe, Geerts and Booth

to be repeated or corrected. He ignores or belittles ideas or opinions of

others that he finds objectionable or with which he is in disagreement.
5. He sets the standards or bar for performance and behavior very high, and
requires all tasks be done “by the book.” Thus, the airman and NCO’s
know the official and correct ways to perform their assigned tasks and
duties.
6. He is a consummate micromanager, involving himself unnecessarily in all
the minor details associated with shift operations and management,
causing the followers to feel that he lacks confidence in their ability to do
their work.
7. He equates busyness with results and effectiveness, causing some
followers to quip that he has an “Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD).”
That is, if his coworkers are not working at something—anything—they
are judged to be disinterested in their jobs or just plain lazy.

MSgt Lanier leadership traits and style were characterized by these attributes:

1. He is laid back, personable, and people-oriented, but lacks the requisite

leadership skills and, therefore, is unable to make independent decisions.
Although he ensures that the work and tasks are performed correctly and
attempts to build relationships, he is considered to be “light weight” by
his shift.
2. He defers to MSgt Hansen, is easily persuaded, and merely implements
what he is told to do, becoming a “… task-oriented leader by proxy.”
3. When in his comfort zone, which rarely happens, his decision style is
more democratic than autocratic— “…a democratic leader without a
backbone.”
4. He is easily manipulated and intimidated by those who outrank him or
by his followers. Generally, he would rather be in a position that does not
require leading, is personally cognizant of his leadership deficiencies,
and this is reflected in his inability to be assertive and make decisions on
his own.
5. Members of his shift do not respect or value him as their leader.

When Cheryl finished her dissection of the Lanier and Hansen’s personalities and
their dominant leadership traits and style, she wondered how these attributes fit
within the formal theories of leadership. She enjoyed learning about the
characteristics associated with situational leadership styles and felt that it would
be a useful tool to use in organizational assessment and analysis. She remembered
that situational leadership is adaptable to the characteristics of the followers and
the environmental milieu in which the leader performs. However, as she recalled,
the leader must be able to evaluate where the employees are in their development
and adjust the leadership style accordingly. In this case, Hansen, because of his
inflexibility and directive style, was either unable or was unwilling to modify or
adapt his behavior to the situation. Accordingly, Cheryl reasoned, Hansen’s co-
32
Journal of Business and Educational Leadership

workers had no other choice but to learn to deal with his directive and authoritative
characteristics.

For MSgt Lanier, Cheryl felt he was capable of employing the theory of situational
leadership. He attempted, unlike Hansen, to build relationships with the team or
shift and was supportive of their efforts. Rather than ignore or demean ideas or
suggestions coming from others, he was open to assisting airmen when they needed
support and direction and, generally, he delegated authority competently in that he
knew “instinctively” which tasks that could be assigned and to whom.

What had begun as little more than a “flight of ideas” after a stressful and strenuous
day at the “office” had absorbed over two hours of her “leisure” time. She looked
at the digital timer on the microwave and could not believe that she had just
immersed herself in conducting a “windshield” analysis of the leadership
characteristics displayed by her immediate superiors.

The time had quickly escaped her and she knew that the mental exercise she had
just completed enabled her to size up the work environment at the station; yet she
wondered, how it would help her come to terms with her deeply felt twin emotions
of alienation and anxiety that she regularly felt. Her “free-time” for the evening
was largely exhausted now, yet she had another hour of personal time to complete
her analysis before she went to the base commissary and exchange and bought
some needed groceries and household supplies.

A Psychological Autopsy

Once more, Cheryl picked up her pen and wrote in bold lettering the following
headline on her tablet: Leadership Style and Organizational Impact. She had
a conscious team of rapidly “firing” thoughts and she would not be content until
she had completed this last part of this self-directed analysis. For Hansen she made
the following bulleted observations:

1. He was able to assign the work and get it done correctly and on time.
2. His micromanagement style was counterproductive and his shift was not
only poorly motivated, but performed at a minimalistic level, knowing that
outstanding performance and attention to detail would likely, in the final
analysis, be criticized rather than recognized and rewarded.
3. His shift had disdain for Hansen and morale was always at “rock bottom”
level.
4. Hansen knew that the morale of his shift was low, and rather than take
personal responsibility for it, attributed or blamed it on the philosophy and
leadership style of upper management.

For Lanier, Cheryl wrote down a set of observations that were of mixed valences
in terms of outcome:
33
Meyer, Noe, Geerts and Booth

1. His personable style enables his co-workers to approach him with ease,
develop a relationship, and not fear repercussions for asking a question or
for making a mistake.
2. Since Lanier is not respected by his team, his leadership effectiveness is
considerably diminished to the point of ineffectiveness.
3. His tendency to “sway with the prevailing wind” coupled with a grossly
underdeveloped managerial style, produces inconsistency in his leadership
style and leads to unpredictable behavior—a flexible, movable “pawn”
controlled by higher ranking officers.

Once Cheryl had completed her amateurish analysis, a sense of self-satisfaction

pulsed through her mind. For once, Cheryl had taken the time to purposively size
up her work environment and realistically come to grips with leaders that would
affect her life and professional military career while on her two-year assignment
in Europe.

Questions and Instructions:

1. Cheryl Landry analyzed the leadership style of Master Sergeants Lanier

and Hansen and attempted to understand how their philosophy and
behavior affected the group. Please attempt to perform a casual analysis
of your own work environment and, especially, the leadership
characteristics of your immediate supervisor. Please be specific without
revealing you superior’s name.

2. Please review the abbreviated job descriptions for the assistant chief of
operations and station captain presented in Exhibit 1. Do these descriptions
assist you in better evaluating the leadership competencies and behavior
associated with Master Sergeants Lanier and Hansen? Please explain.

3. Which of two sergeants, Hansen or Lanier, would you feel most

comfortable having as a superior? Specify the pros and cons of each NCO
analyzed by Cheryl.

4. Are there any identifiable traits that you would have your “idealized”
leader possess? If yes, what are they and why are they important to you.
Please explain.

5. Generally, what leadership characteristics would you say are “equally”

applicable to the three sectors of the economy—public, nonprofit and
private? Please elaborate.

6. The military is a public sector organization. Are the characteristics

associated with building teams, group cohesiveness, morale, and military
readiness different from what one would employ non-military
34
Journal of Business and Educational Leadership

organizations whether public or not? Please explain. Would the

characteristics associated with the factors mentioned above be different for
para-military based organizations, such as police departments and
emergency response units? Please elaborate.

Exhibit 1. Job Descriptions for Assistant Chief of Operations and Station Manager

Assistant Chief of Operations

• Supervises/manages duty schedules for 19 military/18 civilian firefighters
operating 18 fire/rescue vehicles
• Oversees inspection/maintenance of facilities and equipment valued at
$10M; prepares/maintains all fitness records
• Provides initial command & control for emergency operations or until
relieved by a Senior Fire Officer (SFO)
• Supports SFO on all fire suppression, rescue incidents, hazardous material
operations and medical responses

Station Captain
• Supervises two to five personnel in daily inspections of safety equipment,
vehicles and facility valued at $10M
• Provides protection for 1,168 facilities and 12,000 personnel by
establishing command & directing firefighting
• Performs fire suppression, confined space rescue, emergency medical
care, and hazardous material team duties
• Develops pre-incident plans; performs fire safety inspections--educates
base populace on fire safety awareness

Case Title: Leadership is More Than Rank

Name:

Case Log and Administrative Journal Entry

This case analysis and learning assessment may be submitted for either instructor
or peer assessment
Case Analysis:
Major case concepts and theories identified:

What is the relevance of the concepts, theories, ideas and techniques presented in
the case to that of public or private management?
Facts: What do we know for sure about the case? Please list.
Who is involved in the case (people, departments, agencies, units, etc.)? Were the
problems of an intra/interagency nature? Be specific.
Are there any rules, laws, regulations or standard operating procedures identified
in the case study that might limit decision-making? If so, what are they?

35
Meyer, Noe, Geerts and Booth

Are there any clues presented in the case as to the major actor’s interests, needs,
motivations and personalities? If so, please list them.
Learning Assessment:
What do the administrative theories present in this case mean to you as an
administrator or manager?
How can this learning be put to use outside the classroom? Are there any problems
you envision during the implementation phase?
Several possible courses of action were identified during the class discussion.
Which action was most practical by the group? Which was deemed most feasible?
Based on your personal experience, did the group reach a conclusion that was
desirable, feasible, and practical? Please explain why or why not.
Did the group reach a decision that would solve the problem on a short-term or
long-term basis? Please explain.
What could you have done to receive more learning value from this case?
Source: Case Log and Administrative Journal Entry reprinted with permission,
Millennium HRM Press, Inc.

REFERENCES
Andrzey, L. (2012). How to Strengthen Positive Organizational Behaviors
Fostering Experiential Learning? The Case of Military
Organizations. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 01 January 2012,
Vol.8 (4), pp.21-34.
Boerner, H. (2013). Credit Where Credit Is Due: Working with Our
Service Members to Provide Credit for Experiential Learning.
Community College Journal, 2013, Vol.84 (1), p.20-24.
Cathcart, E. B., Greenspan, M., Quin, M, (2010). The Making of a Nurse
Manager: The Role of Experiential Learning in Leadership
Development. Journal of Nursing Management, May 2010,
Vol.18 (4), pp.440-447.
Walter, S., Colompos, M., Avila, K. (2015). Leadership through
knowledge: U.S. Army ROTC cadets' sojourn through African
American history and military legacies (Reserve Officers'
Training Corps). Black History Bulletin, 2015, Vol.78 (2), p.
26(4).
Weber, E., Belsky, J., Lach, D., Cheng, A. (2014). The Value of Practice-
Based Knowledge. Society & Natural Resource, 01 January 2014,
p. 1-15.
Websites: The following provide comprehensive materials on selected
institutions and organizations of government and provide many valuable
links to topics associated with modern personnel management practices.
http://www.usa.gov/: A comprehensive site that can link to almost all
government sites, which are easily listed as executive, legislative,
and judicial branches and offices. This is the “real McCoy” of

36
Journal of Business and Educational Leadership

federal government websites and is touted as the one single best

source for information on the U.S. government.

http://www.searchgov.com/: An in-depth site for links to federal and state

governmental programs and agencies.

http://www.census.gov/: The U.S. Census Bureau site provides

information about recent census data, people, business,
geography, news, and additional topics. A top notch site for
demographic, social, and economic data compiled nationally, by
state and locale.

http://www.dod.mil/: Comprehensive site for all things military, including

metrics on size, base and installation locations, pay and other
personnel matters.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/: The official website for the U.S.

Supreme Court.

http://www.va.gov/: The Department of Veteran Affairs website contains

information about health, compensation, education, insurance,
special services, and links to state and local sites.

http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/fedstate_lessonplan.htm: A
website that aims to help an average person to understand the
differences between federal, state and other special courts. It also
provides links to “locate courts” in your own state and city and
other judiciary websites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs: U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

37
Copyright of Journal of Business & Educational Leadership is the property of American
Society of Business & Behavioral Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.